BANGOR – The next state Legislature could begin talks on establishing a home heating fuels reserve either in Maine or for all of northern New England.

The idea is part of a draft report by a legislative study committee on high fuel costs that will be presented to the Legislature’s Transportation Committee in late December.

How the reserve would be set up is not fully understood because the recommendation has not been thoroughly studied, said Rep. Patrick Colwell, D-Gardiner, who will serve as House majority leader over the next two years.

Colwell, a member of the study committee, said Sunday that because of the “critical nature of the issue” of high heating fuel costs and low supply inventories, the reserve idea probably would be given bipartisan consideration by the Legislature because of the immediate need for it.

OPEC’s decision last week not to increase production beyond current levels could add fuel to the study committee’s recommendation to set up a statewide reserve. Analysts say it will prolong the nation’s energy crisis, which has been ongoing for more than a year, and the state has few options in place now to combat it.

The heating fuels reserve may mirror the New England heating oil reserve established by President Clinton this year, Colwell said. Supplies would be purchased when prices are low, generally in the late spring or early summer, and stockpiled in storage tanks already located in Bangor, Bucksport, Searsport and South Portland.

A trigger mechanism would be put into place that would release the heating fuels only under certain circumstances, such as desperately critical levels of inventories that might last a day or two.

Who would get the heating fuels for distribution also would need to be reviewed. Colwell said it probably wouldn’t be the state’s major suppliers, such as Webber Energy Fuels or Dead River, because generally they have the financial means to buy adequate supplies and the storage facilities to place the fuels.

Instead, the smaller, rural suppliers who serve out-of-the-way customers would be given first consideration because of their inability to build necessary inventories to maintain demand levels, Colwell said.

“Those are the ones we’d like to target,” Colwell said.

Funding for the reserve may come from the state’s $150 million budget surplus, Colwell said.

The heating fuels reserve is one of a number of recommendations that will be outlined in the study committee’s draft report. But those ideas, which seemed feasible when conceptualized during the group’s months of meetings, “probably won’t go anywhere” because of a lack of time to study and subsequently implement them, said a legislative analyst who worked with the committee.

Among the recommendations:

. The state would institute tax incentives for heating fuels suppliers to encourage them to stockpile the fuels.

“For various reasons, the players aren’t investing in the stockpiles,” Colwell said. Most suppliers say that because heating fuels are considered commodities, they are buying what is needed to fill demand and provide an adequate cushion of stock for upcoming days or weeks.

But, they say, they are buying the fuels on a “hedge” – purchasing at what they think is a low price but hoping that the price doesn’t drop lower than that, forcing them to lose money because they have to sell it at the lowest market price.

How far this recommendation will go in the state Legislature is speculative.

“Whether there’s anything they [the state] can do there, that remains to be seen,” said legislative analyst Jon Clark.

. The state would become involved in the futures market, buying heating fuels the same way major suppliers buy their inventories.

But, Clark said, that could put the state financially at risk. State officials might buy fuels at what they think is a low price at the time. Then if the market drops, the state, in turn, would have to sell the fuels to reflect the lower price and thus lose money.

. Increase funding for the State Planning Office for its oversight of state energy policies. Clark said a number of the responsibilities from the closing of the Energy Resources Office in the 1980s was placed on the State Planning Office.

Where the funding would come from is not known, Clark said.

The legislative study committee does not have the authority to write legislation, Clark said. All it can do is present its findings to the transportation committee and encourage it to follow through on its proposals.

OPEC’s decision last week not to increase production of crude oil beyond current levels may prolong the nation’s energy crisis, according to analysts in the state.

The effect of OPEC’s move may not be felt until spring when motorists start putting more miles on their cars, said Chris Brown, president of Energy Data Inc., which operates the Web site www.maineoil.com.

This winter’s heating oil supplies may not be affected because most of the crude needed to produce the fuel already is in the “pipeline,” an arbitrary flow system that runs from the ground to refinery to supplier to consumer, he said.

Wayne Mitchell, a spokesman for the Maine Oil Dealers, agreed. He said most of the dealers believe they will have an adequate supply to get them through the winter months.

On the federal level, though, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that the impact of OPEC’s decision could hit the Northeast before the first thaw.

“It could be sooner than that,” said DOE spokeswoman Jane Brady. Her estimated date is March.

That leaves the state pushing one initiative – conservation.

With crude oil production and demand for it both up, State Planning Office economist Laurie Lachance said Mainers should try to lower their reliance on heating fuels and gasoline by taking simple, cost-effective measures. Those include home improvements, turning down thermostats a couple degrees and wearing a sweater, and reducing the number of trips in their cars.

“The only thing we can control is consumption,” Lachance said.